Canon adopts MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) file-based recording codec for upcoming cam

Retrospective

Retrospective

Well-known member
Canon adopts MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) file-based recording codec for upcoming professional video camcorder

New Canon MPEG-2 Codec chosen for file-based professional video camcorder promises compatibility with industry-standard editing & processing software

London, February 2, 2010 - Canon Inc. today announces the adoption of an MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) file-based recording codec for a new professional video camcorder currently under development. The Canon MPEG-2 codec will enable high-quality imaging and audio performance with up to 50 Mbps data recording and twice the colour data of HDV[1] profile formats. File-based recording helps video operations realise greater efficiencies during post-production processing, making it an ideal format for many industry applications such as news gathering, documentary filmmaking and event videography.


MPEG-2 Full HD compression and 4:2:2 colour sampling
The adoption of MPEG-2 Full HD (MPEG-2 4:2:2 HP@HL compliant) compression enables the recording of 1,920 x 1,080-pixel full high-definition video. Additionally, compared with the 4:2:0 profile format used in HDV and other standards, 4:2:2 colour sampling offers twice the volume of colour data, providing double the level of colour resolution.


Maximum 50 Mbps data recording
With approximately twice the total data volume of HDV, the codec supports higher resolution and increased colour data to enable the recording of high-quality video.


Industry-standard MXF[2] file format
MXF (Material eXchange Format) is a widely supported open source file format for the recording of video, audio and metadata, developed to suit the latest editing systems used by broadcasters.


Canon partners with major editing and processing software
With the adoption of the MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) file-based recording codec, Canon is working in cooperation with Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Avid Technology, Inc. and Grass Valley to ensure compatibility with major editing and processing software programs widely used within the video imaging industry. Additionally, at future industry events Canon intends to demonstrate the overall video-production workflow, from initial video capture to clip-trimming and final editing. Video clips stored in a file-based recording system and industry-standard software applications will be used.
[1] HDV is a standard for the recording and playback of high definition (1,440 x 1,080 pixels) video and audio on DV-format cassette tapes
[2] A format for professional digital video and audio media defined by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE)


Download the full press release [PDF, 110 KB]
 
Interesting indeed. Now if they could put better chips in their video cameras I'd be happy to go back to Canon. I wonder if Sony will follow suit and finally give their EX cams the 4:2:2 that they deserve.
 
Mua-ha-ha! I was expecting something like that. Canon might be late, but it often flanks it adversaries, having a twist in its product. This is what I expected from Sony instead of their NXCAM, but Canon turned out to be smarter. Its MPEG-2 encoder is probably the best out of the three companies (JVC, Canon, Sony), and now with 50 Mbit/s and 4:2:2 color it will be a good alternative to AVCHD and to 50 Mbit/s AVC-I. Bravo, Canon.

I wonder what the price will be.

Interesting, there is no mentioning of media. I hope Canon chooses SDHC/SDXC. Keep fingers crossed.
 
Last edited:
Considering that Canon did not mention media, what if they are going to offer a USB port or a dock for a disk drive or for a CF card? No other company offers such a feature. Canon does not manufacture memory cards, so it has no reason to protect its own proprietary media. A camcorder with a removable HDD dock, that would be yet another shocker.

As for bitrate, considering "up to" 50 Mbit/s, I am pretty sure that Canon will offer 25 Mbit/s (HDV) and 35 Mbit/s (XDCAM EX) rates, but with 4:2:0 color sampling. This is what I call a proper upgrade from HDV.
 
Cranky said:
...with 50 Mbit/s and 4:2:2 color it will be a good alternative to AVCHD and to 50 Mbit/s AVC-I. Bravo, Canon...
Click to expand...

4:2:2 50Mbps long GOP MPEG-2 should pretty much smoke AVC-I (and AVCHD). At the same bitrate, using interfame compression should fairly easily cover the gap in efficiency (image quality per bit wise) between AVC and MPEG-2 (for most typical footage).

It's not like intraframe only compression offers much advantage for editing either, compared to long GOP MPEG-2. Modern mainstream desktop computers are plenty potent enough to handle long GOP MPEG-2 quite easily nowadays.

I really wish Canon had gone with 32Mbps AVC (at 4:2:2) though.
 
XDCAM and XDCAM EX are already production standards, acceptable by networks. It will take time for AVCHD to be accepted. By choosing high profile MPEG-2 Canon can start selling equipment right now to big networks in large amounts. Yee-haw! I hope this will transfer in lower prices for the rest of us (um, the rest of YOU, people. The camera will be too expensive for me anyway).
 
32Mbps AVC (with 4:2:2 color) is not AVCHD (should pretty much blow away AVCHD), but yes, it would not likely be greeted with open arms by the networks, even though the quality could be roughly comparable to the 100Mbps flavor of AVC-I (assuming a good codec implementation). Going with long-GOP achieves varying degrees of image quality improvement over intraframe only compression (depends on the footage and how well the interframe aspect of the compression is implemented), but 3x is certainly in the realm of reasonable expectations with AVC, for typical footage.
 
I mean, given a choice of buying, say a car with 3.5 liter engine working on 87 gasoline and a car with 1.4 twin-turbo that requires synthetic oil and RON94 Sunoco, which one would you buy?

What Canon is going to offer makes a lot of sense.
 
Robert M Wright said:
4:2:2 50Mbps long GOP MPEG-2 should pretty much smoke AVC-I (and AVCHD). At the same bitrate, using interfame compression should fairly easily cover the gap in efficiency (image quality per bit wise) between AVC and MPEG-2 (for most typical footage).

It's not like intraframe only compression offers much advantage for editing either, compared to long GOP MPEG-2. Modern mainstream desktop computers are plenty potent enough to handle long GOP MPEG-2 quite easily nowadays.

I really wish Canon had gone with 32Mbps AVC (at 4:2:2) though.
Click to expand...

While full HD, 4:2:2, 50 Mbps MPEG2 would make a nice picture, I don't think it will smoke AVC-I. In another thread, Barry Green compared 35Mbps MPEG2 XDcam with 24Mbps AVCHD, and the AVCHD was much less blocky in stress situations. Canon's extra 15Mbps is probably dedicated to the extra color data (and maybe extra audio channels), so chances are the picture will still be blocky in stress situations. Of course, we don't know until we see it.

But like you, I wish Canon had gone with a high bit rate MPEG4 compression. I know AVCHD over 24Mbps is not "standard", but every camera company seems to make their own standard anyway. It just seems backwards to choose MPEG2 now, when everybody else is moving to MPEG4.
 
Cranky said:
I mean, given a choice of buying, say a car with 3.5 liter engine working on 87 gasoline and a car with 1.4 twin-turbo that requires synthetic oil and RON94 Sunoco, which one would you buy?

What Canon is going to offer makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

AVC (natively) is tough on mainstream desktop CPUs currently, but it won't be for long, and right now editing AVC source really is quite manageable. Edius Neo 2.5 handles AVCHD natively pretty well now, and transcoding to intermediates (like Cineform's codec or Canopus HQ) has been a very viable way to go for quite some time now.
 
Btw, I use synthetic oil in my little Hyundai Accent. That car has well over 100,000 miles on it now and the little sewing machine size engine in it still runs pretty smooth. :happy:
 
Robert M Wright said:
4:2:2 50Mbps long GOP MPEG-2 should pretty much smoke AVC-I (and AVCHD). At the same bitrate, using interfame compression should fairly easily cover the gap in efficiency (image quality per bit wise) between AVC and MPEG-2 (for most typical footage).

It's not like intraframe only compression offers much advantage for editing either, compared to long GOP MPEG-2. Modern mainstream desktop computers are plenty potent enough to handle long GOP MPEG-2 quite easily nowadays.

I really wish Canon had gone with 32Mbps AVC (at 4:2:2) though.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. it will perform perfectly under norml conditions but not on all situations. AVCI will kick its mpeg2 ass on straining situations :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top